This recent BBC News header[1] was typical of the news headlines worldwide on the story:

Michelle Obama racist image sparks Google apology

Apparently, the image referred to was a photograph of Mrs Obama that had been manipulated to give her the facial features of a monkey. I say apparently, because the mock-up photo no longer appears as the #1 ranking on Googles list of image search results for Michelle Obama.[2]

It is very clear however from the news reports of the race row[3] that in the last days that the picture was Google-accessible, it stirred many people. Such was the furore, Google executives issued an apology, even though they themselves were not responsible for the photo.

--snip--

However, it seems theres a key part of the story that has been left unreportedat least, in the numerous mainstream media reports. Whats missing is an explanation of why likening Americas First Lady to an ape or monkey is considered racist.

After all, when the previous president of the United States, George W. Bush, was likened to a chimpanzee on various websites,[6,7] the mockery was never referred to as being racist in nature...

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!

It must be embarrassing to be both black and a “man.” Watching the vast majority of your peers dance around the pity tree. Occasionally I find myself wishing I were black so I could kick some ars where it needs to be kicked.

I'll put it on the table and the mods can delete this post if the truth offends some.

Seems everyone tiptoes around the Monkey/African/American. I have lived in the South all my life and images and comparisons of monkeys and black people are a racist fact. Why? Because to SOME people (whites, asian, latino and even some blacks) Blacks look like monkeys. There. I Brought it out. The big lips, big mouth the nose, and yes the color of the hair.

That is the racist part. To equate someone as being dumb as an ape is not.

I truly believe that Darwinism is inherently racist whether it is true or not. Of course, I don’t believe it is true, which makes it all the worse. But even if it were true, some races would have to be lower or less evolved than other races by definition.

>>I truly believe that Darwinism is inherently racist whether it is true or not. Of course, I dont believe it is true, which makes it all the worse. But even if it were true, some races would have to be lower or less evolved than other races by definition.<<

You may believe it, but that don’t make it so. TToE is no more racist than a wrench or a telescope. It recognizes a diversity of traits but, other than stochastically moving the ball of the entire human race, makes no judgment on what we call “race.” In scientific terms, what we call “race” is a primarily a social concept, not a (natural) scientific one (although certain lineages do have unique features).

From the article: "In other words, when the media reports that monkey-like mock-up photos of Michelle Obama are racist, theyre tacitly highlighting societys long-held view, fuelled by evolution, that blacks are less evolved than whites. Of course the mainstream media dont dare put it so bluntlyits simply assumed."

>>In other words, when the media reports that monkey-like mock-up photos of Michelle Obama are racist, theyre tacitly highlighting societys long-held view, fuelled by evolution, that blacks are less evolved than whites. Of course the mainstream media dont dare put it so bluntlyits simply assumed<<

That is an assertion — there is no research behind it. Saying something don’t make it so. In this case, it is a total misapplication of two entire branches of science: anthropology and sociology.

It looks more to me that the author is the racist and assuming his/her conclusions are true for everyone else. This is called “projection” and is a bad thing.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks  ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chap. vi)

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."

Precisely. I think the evos are uncomfortable with the whole evo-racism thing because they can’t disavow the racism, as it is built right into Darwin’s “theory.” So they try to make us feel guilty for pointing it out instead.

The Bible is filled with racism and a lot more vitriolic (and downright violent).

Look at these additional quotes from Descent:

“Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.”

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”

“The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.”

“I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him.”

For 1821 that was very enlightened indeed from a white man. The conclusion that there may be lineage would be based on observation.

The article also notes in passing some of what you are trying to say, but then they have to acknowledge the OVERT RACISM of virtually EVERY WHITE PERSON in Europe of that day. So ALL science advancements from that period (there were many) are also based in racism. Chemistry, physics, medicine — all steeped in racism.

And the assertion does not affect Darwin’s work nor TToE. As I said (and you ignored), there is no research behind the asserted conclusion about how people react and its linkage to TToE.

>>Precisely. I think the evos are uncomfortable with the whole evo-racism thing because they cant disavow the racism, as it is built right into Darwins theory. So they try to make us feel guilty for pointing it out instead.<<

Read my prior post. Misusing this as the author does and then posting assertions based on faulty logic should make you uncomfortable. Not only does it have no effect on TToE by attacking its author, but it also misstates his position on the context of his time.

Precisely. I think the evos are uncomfortable with the whole evo-racism thing because they cant disavow the racism, as it is built right into Darwins theory. So they try to make us feel guilty for pointing it out instead.

Ha ha. Good call. It is like when anyone opposes the gay agenda, they are accused of being a closet homo.

The entire founding of the ancient Israel is filled with exhortation that all other races are to be wiped out or bend to the Israelites.

The “curse” of dark color as a punishment to Ham’s son is clearly racist.

Now these are within the context of the day and we know that God also said to put these aside. But also did Darwin overcome the prevalent thought of his day as he allowed his logic to lead him

Racism is thousands of years old — to visit it upon Darwin as an argument (actually an assertion, the author never backs up his/her claim) opens up visiting it upon any and all, including the Bible itself.

—What was started by Darwin  the idea that blacks are closer to apes? Hardly. The idea of there being different human races, ranking them, and believing that blacks (or other races) are closer to apes was very common before Darwin and goes back centuries.

For example Charles White wrote a popular book in 1799 called “An Account of the Regular Gradation in Man” where he argued that blacks were intermediate between apes and whites (not in an evolutionary sense) and included this famous diagram:http://www.strangescience.net/enlar/en_white2.jpg

(Darwin himself was rather ambivalent as to whether biology had anything to do with with Europe’s technological superiority and thought it may be purely cultural:
The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.)

Why of course that poor, wretched, subhuman negro is to be pitied by rich white intellectuals who are so much more evolutionarily advanced than these lessers, right "FreeDarwin2003"?

They can't possibly take care of themselves -- after all they are little more than animals anyway. Let's send them welfare checks, make them dependent on government and our elite, enlightened "compassion." Our rich white Great Society and HHS will clothe and feed them and cage them in "public housing projects," destroy their sense of family, and fatherhood leadership, and to control their population we'll sterilize them in our Harlem Clinic, perform science experiments on them with our Tuskeegee Project, and exterminate them with our Negro Project, and fund not for profit taxpayer subsidized Planned Parenthood clinics within their communities to make "health care" more available to them. We are just so damn comapssionate aren't we, FreeDarwin2003?(/sarc)

Liberals and Darwinian evolutionary premise are inextricably linked.

Bet as an evolutionist you're feeling just as comapssionate as Darwin, Sanger, Davenport Popenoe, and ol' James D. Watson right about now....

James D., who?

James Watson, PhD, along with Francis Crick, PhD, a co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix structure, Nobel Prize 1962, if fact. Hmmmm looks like Obama and he share something in common. Though I'll bet Watson -- for evolutionary reasons of course, doesn't think they share the same level of intelligence.

October 2007: In a Sunday Times (UK) interview Dr. Watson was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

So ALL science advancements from that period (there were many) are also based in racism. Chemistry, physics, medicine  all steeped in racism.

All science advancement from that period based in racism? Quite a claim you make there. Don't know that that is completely true, and if fact I'll call you on that, but even as it was then, anyone teaching Darwinian evolution as any thing credible today tacitly teaches racism. No escaping that fact. This is just one reason true conservatism and Darwinism are philosophically poles apart. True conservatism is neither founded in racism nor promotes racism. Darwinism on the other hand is founded in racism and subsequently and subtly promotes racism.

Why don't you comment some more on what racism your studies has discovered in the fields of chemistry, physics, and medicine from the late 1800's. I am aware of the German "scientific" and "medical" experiments on the Herero: case in point ---

Ernst Haeckel ---- yeah, the same guy who did the fraudulent comparative embryonic drawings, Darwin worshipper -- the works -- was a protégé of Rudolf Ludwig Carl Virchow, who was appointed head of the Pathological Institute of Berlin from 1893-1902.

Eugen Fischer became head of the Berlin Institute in 1908. Germanys African colonies rebelled under German rule about the same time as Haeckels evolutionary political and Monist (pre-Nazi) activity became most prominent.

The African colonies and concentration camps also served racial scientific inquiry. Post-mortems were performed to study causes of death and bodies of executed prisoners were preserved and shipped to Germany for dissection.

A 1907 chronicle reported that: "A chest of Herero skulls was recently sent to the Pathological Institute in Berlin, where they will be subjected to scientific measurements.

Probably the most well-known study was the physician, Eugen Fishers evaluation of Basters, the mixed-blood children of Dutch men and Nama women. He argued that "Negro blood" was of "lesser value" and that mixing it with "white blood" would destroy European culture, and advised that Africans should be exploited by Europeans as long they were useful, after which they could be eliminated.

(German science and black racismroots of the Nazi Holocaustby François Haas, The FASEB Journal. 2008;22:332-337 (New York University Institute of Community Health and Research, New York University School of Medicine, NY, NY)

Copenhagen AGW conference -- just another world wide attempt at the Great Society described earlier, only writ large. The racist monied elites have it all planned and their (busted) "peer reviewed" minions are singing their song. The West's (though not Al Gore's "elites" who stand to make the money) wealth is transferred to exploitable third world, because they're all too dumb and incompetent to take care of themselves.

Hermann Gauch was a famous Nazi race theorist, identified with what was termed, Nordic Theory. In his Basis for Race ResearchNeve Grundlagen Zur Rassenforschung (1935):

The non-Nordics and the animals [are] just about next to the anthropoid ape. He is therefore not a complete man. He is really not a man at all in the true counter-distinction to animals, but a transition, an intermediate stage, better and more apt is the designation, subhuman untermench.

If non-Nordics are more closely allied with monkeys and apes than to Nordics, why is it possible for them to mate with Nordics and not apes? The answer is this: It has not been proved that non-Nordics cannot mate with apes.

I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him.

How condescending.

However, the Bible stated the equality of man long before Darwin.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

39
posted on 12/08/2009 9:06:49 PM PST
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

The "curse" of dark color as a punishment to Hams son is clearly racist.

You apparently have been misinformed by the Mormon Bible, Talmud, or Southern Protestant denominations. Neither the New or Old Testament says that Hams sons were cursed with dark color as a punishment. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, Anglicans, and Northern Protestant denominations have never taught this.

I am not going down this side road — either you understand or you don’t.

It has taken me a while for me to realize that when I say “the house is surrounded by a white fence” that you and yours seize on “WHITE? It was CREAM!” instead of the point the fence is surrounding the house is the issue. The last refuge of the terminally lost.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.